FIRST PUBLISHED AT MY STATION'S INTERACTIVE WEBSITE, http://conversation.wamu.org
PLEASE SIGN-UP !
About once a week, I get an email from a listener who is frustrated that we "covered up" an NPR segment with "insignificant" local news, arts, traffic, or weather.
If you share this sentiment, I have some good news for you.
NPR has signaled its intentions to forge ahead with its multi-million dollar expansion of NPR.ORG, this week launching its own version of The Conversation and announcing a $2.5 million training scheme for its reporters to learn how to write and shoot pictures for the web.
I saw a similar type of "convergence" happen at the BBC when the News Division merged radio and TV and made reporters file for both. Some took to it, some didn't. One unforgiving TV manager, appraising an erstwhile radio reporter's work on camera, coined the phrase "you definitely have a face for radio".
Then the web arrived and BBC reporters now have to file there, too. This undoubtedly increases reporter efficiency in covering stories across several media, but there are still frequent complaints from the reporters and producers that they have less and less time to gather the facts, background and color they need because they're too busy filing. Consequently, quality sometimes suffers.
But for public radio devotees, this will increase choice. There will be program options, platforms, and resources at NPR.ORG which local public stations can't replicate via plain old radio transmitters. Thanks to the web, for the first time NPR is a broadcaster in its own right. And if we cover-up Frank Deford with a local story, you can get him at NPR.ORG.
This is a brave new world for all of us in public broadcasting and I'd like to be able to say there's been a thorough debate and dialogue on these issues within the industry. But there hasn't. And NPR's strategy will lead to huge challenges for stations. Will NPR.ORG lure listeners away from our signal and onto the NPR website? Will members then decide to contribute less during membership campaigns, or to give elsewhere? If our audience numbers fall, will potential corporate sponsors find WAMU less attractive? And, as a result, will NPR's nose spite its face, since 60% of NPR's revenue comes from its member stations?
Aware of the concerns, NPR has been a supportive partner with local stations in other new media ventures. Thanks to these collaborations, you can get WAMU news updates on your mobile phone, or hear a podcast of Diane, Kojo or Metro Connection.
My belief is that its both sense of place, and sense of identity, which will ensure the survival of local stations, and are probably key to the success of NPR.ORG, as well. In the ears and minds of listeners, public radio stands for original content, properly sourced information, decency, constructive dialogue, good citizenry, and, in the stations' case, localism.
I've recently dabbled in the online community "Twitter". While there is the occasional gem of a contribution, most of the dialogue centers on relaying information gathered by others (websites, TV shows, blogs) or self-centered trivia from users concerned about their over-use of sugar substitutes in coffee and the like.
The challenge is to originate strong programs, and build on our unique strengths while maintaining our authenticity. We will stand or fall on our ability to deliver distinctive programs which truly belong to the WAMU Community. Hot Jazz Saturday Night, The Kojo Nnamdi Show, and The Big Broadcast are today's examples. But we'll need to be constantly inventive going forward. WAMU can do on air and on the web what NPR cannot - put Washington D.C.'s citizens at the center of the universe.
For all the debate about distribution platforms, it's still all about the content, not where it resides. And we're still your local station.
